|
|
|
| Authored by: foulis on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT</b><br><u>
;1173</u><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
data, but there may be some issues and potential uses that we haven't
considered. Please forward this mail as appropriate - I need feedback as soon as
possible. We are already starting negotiations, and it's important that we be
very clear about what we want.</p>
From billg Fri Jan 3 09:21:11 1992<br>
Subject: Office sales<br>
To: mikemap, lewisl<br>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 9:21:07 PST<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
I was pleased to see what a high percentage of our sales office has become - if
I am reading my October figures correctly it was almost 1/3 of non-office word
and excel sales. I assume our price is still at $750 on both the mac and windows
platform and will stay there. Paul Brainerd believes our holding onto share in
the standalone Mac presentations market is largely based on the visibility that
the office offering provides - he may not be objective but he felt that is why
he cant[sic] get above 25% of the total mac presentations market even though he
feels he has the best product. I would suspect that office is also very helpful
to word and excel since wordperfect does not have a credible spreadsheet and ami
isnt[sic] viewed as mainstream at least at this point. I am not sure what else
we should be doing with office since I dont[sic] really believe in advertising
broadly - we can mention it in ads but having more specific ads probably
isnt[sic] important.</p>
From billg Fri Jan 3 09:40:07 1992<br>
Subject: Money<br>
To: susanb<br>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 9:40:01 PST<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
I may not be saying anything that you are not already planning but here is my
view of Money.</p>
We did a reasonable product with a few neat new ideas but nothing significant to
"hang our hat on" - unless Intuit had stayed away from the Windows
market we ended up with a pretty "me too" offering that wasnt[sic]
marketed or priced as aggressively. I am amazed at how low they have taken their
promotions - either they value market share as a long term asset over all things
or the after market profit of add ons and checks is bigger than we think or they
manage to only sell a small part of their volume at the very discounted prices.
In any case my view of the future is:</p>
1. In February or so we should look at what price they stabilize at - their
street versus ours. If it is lower then I think we should lower our
price.</p>
2. We should not come out with a new version that is just catch up - investments
and check free. We need those features but we shouldnt[sic] do a new version
until we have something creative that we can get the press and users excited
about. Unfortunately I am mot knowledgeable about the category so I am not a
good source of ideas - some use of wizards for common tasks might be
helpful.</p>
The only caveat to number 2 (which I am sure you are struggling with) is the
desire to enter the European markets early as this category gets established. My
assumption is that if we enter at about the same time</p>
<p align=right>MS 5047936<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<hr>
<br>
the applets, Word, Excel, etc., and a few VB macros that would drive the other
apps using DDE. Altogether there were about 35 components. Then they sat me in
front of the UI, where I typed things like "I want to write a report".
I would get a hit list below (ordered by relevancy), and a set of questions that
would decrease the hit list, for example, "Do you want the report to be in
Word format?", and "Will you have charts?", and "Is this an
annual report?". Then you could launch the hit and get your work done
without knowing about the components used. It was pretty neat. With commands,
this could be the basis of a very cool task-focused help and Wizards
technology.</p>
I don't want to make this too long, but they also have a neat debugging
environment, and the user can play alot of what ifs, and optimization games with
the system. It supports monitors/triggers. They showed an alpha version of a
system to process legacy data into categories using neural and genetic
algorithms. Again, they weren't trying to do super-fancy things, but had good
performance on a number of standard AI benchmarks. This is learning
modeling.</p>
I think there are a number of interesting business arrangements we could look at
with Inference for Win4 (I don't know how interested apps is in this - I know
that Word would like to do smarter wizards) that range from full integration
into our query system down to just having them supply an applet called
"component/task manager" to make workspaces smarter (or whatever our
task-orientation thing will be). They seem to be reasonably flexible (they are
half consulting business already).</p>
This is one way we can push ahead in user friendliness, esp. in the harsher,
more complex world of many components. I think that the Inferen technology can
get us a long way in the right direction. I'd like to get this going for Win4 by
putting together a low-dependency plan for Inference work.</p>
Edward<br>
<p align=right>HIGHLY<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
From: susanb Wed Jan 15 09:57:05 1992<br>
To: joachimk<br>
Subject: Zenith deal<br>
Cc: mikemap<br>
Date: Wed Jan 15 09:53:33 1992<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
My understanding is that you have offered Winworks at $0 to Zenith to secure a
WinBall deal. WinWorks becomes the placeholder until WinBall ships. This offer
should NOT have been made for the following reasons:<br>
<ul>
<li> The offer was made without the knowledge of EBU or the Apps division.
It violates all guidelines currently in place and agreed upon by OEM and the
business units. We should be consulted before you give our products
away.</li>
<li> This is not a strategic offering for us. It makes no effort to gain
ground on the important business we have invested much time in securing. In
fact, Zenith is shipping PFS: WindowWorks on several other machines</li>
</ul>
<p align=right>MS 5047937<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<hr>
<br>
<ul>
<li>EBU loses revenue -- unless you've figured out a way to compensate EBU
for being a placeholder.</li>
<li>More important, this may well damage our ability to effectively
negotiate a realistic deal with Zenith in the future.</li>
</ul>
We need to let this deal stand at $0 for WinWorks because you have already made
the offer. After our experience with the Phillips deal where the OEM rep had to
pull back after the offer, we know that we cannot pull back after an offer has
been made without losing the deal and seriously damaging the relationship. But I
want to know what we can do to ENSURE this doesn't happen again.</p>
<br>
From: joachimk Wed Jan 15 12:02:47 1992<br>
To: susanb<br>
Cc: mikemap<br>
Subject: RE: Zenith deal<br>
Date: Wed Jan 15 12:39:06 PDT 1992<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
1. True, not strategic for EBU but for MS. Need to keep competitors out. Hope
you understand. (this is actually the first time in 9 years that I agreed to
this)<br>
2. Deal is not cooked. This will only happen if they decide to accept our WIN
ball delay. decision on March 1st - so today this is academic.<br>
3. They perfectly understand that this is not the rule and I would not worry
getting a reasonable deal out of them in the future-trust me.<br>
4. Phillips - bad example. I cannot accept deals where we allow to recoup
prepaids for three years, but give them pricing for 1 year. And we will get the
deal, I am pretty confident about this.<br>
<blockquote>From: susanb Wed Jan 15 09:57:05 1992<br>
To: joachimk<br>
Subject: Zenith deal<br>
Cc: mikemap<br>
Date: Wed Jan 15 09:53:33 1992<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
My understanding is that you have offered Winworks at $0 to Zenith to secure a
WinBall deal. WinWorks becomes the placeholder until WinBall ships. This offer
should NOT have been made for the following reasons:<br>
<ul>
<li> The offer was made without the knowledge of EBU or the Apps division.
It violates all guidelines currently in place and agreed upon by OEM and the
business units. We should be consulted before you give our products
away.</li>
<li> This is not a strategic offering for us. It makes no effort to gain
ground on the important business we have invested much time in securing. In
fact, Zenith is shipping PFS: WindowWorks on several other machines</li>
<li>EBU loses revenue -- unless you've figured out a way to compensate EBU
for being a placeholder.</li>
<li>More important, this may well damage our ability to effectively
negotiate a realistic deal with Zenith in the future.</li>
</ul></blockquote>
<p align=right>MS 5047938<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<hr>
<br>
<blockquote>We need to let this deal stand at $0 for WinWorks because you
have already made the offer. After our experience with the Phillips deal where
the OEM rep had to pull back after the offer, we know that we cannot pull back
after an offer has been made without losing the deal and seriously damaging the
relationship. But I want to know what we can do to ENSURE this doesn't happen
again.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
From: vijayv Wed Jan 15 12:43:20 1992<br>
To: jeffr mikemap peteh<br>
Subject: Brianmac<br>
Cc: vivjayv<br>
Date: Wed Jan 15 12:42:43 1992<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
Congratulations Jeff!</p>
In response to his question about a role in the Proj group, I had indicated that
he could report to JeffLi. which made his choice clearer.</p>
More important, Brian seems excited about working on the PGIM stuff and making
it happen. It does seem very unclear what the org looks like or exactly what his
role is, but his attitude is very positive. We talked a lot about various items,
and I think he is convinced that he need to and now wants to do more for
Microsoft (since MS has been good to him). This has resulted in him dropping the
idea of a shorter work week, which is encouraging. A good transition would be
after 3.0 is released and a postmortem is done (the latter can be done while he
is ramping up on PGIM).</p>
In the next 30 days or so, I'll start the ball rolling. JeffLi will be made
development manager for Project, and Brian will move to a group that he works
out with Jeff/Daniel. He as been working very hard for a while and will need to
rejuvenate, so will probably need to take time off during the transition.
Thx.</p>
<p align=right>HIGHLY<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<br>
From: hankv Wed Jan 15 12:46:15 1992<br>
To: bradsi garygi jonre jonro richt<br>
Cc: dawntr josephk lewisl mikemap peteh steveb<br>
Subject: Re: Upgrade Workshops<br>
Date: Tue Jan 14 13:46:51 1992<br>
Mail-Flags: 0000</p>
I take this as a green light to move forward. All agree that the content has to
be consistent and work for the audience as defined. We are signed up for this in
Apps, and I'm confident that working together we will easily lmake this happen.
Dawntr's weekly meeting is a good way to check progress to everyone's
satisfaction as we move forward.</p>
Thanks,</p>
Hank</p>
| >From bradsi Wed Jan 15 11:15:44 1992<br>
| To: garygi hankv jonre jonro richt<br>
| Cc: dawntr garygi lewisl peteh steveb<br>
<p align=right>MS 5047939<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: foulis on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT</b><br><u>
;1463</u><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
From: collinsh Wed Oct 21 18:39:25 1992<br>
X-MSMail-Message-ID: AF288A4E<br>
X-MSMail-Conversation-ID: AF288A4E<br>
X-MSMail-WiseRemark: Microsoft Mail -- 3.0.729<br>
To: billmi jonl steveb<br>
Date: Wed 21 Oct 92 18:38:40 PDT<br>
Subject: FW: novell and wfw</p>
------------<br>
From: <COLLEENL@or.wagged.com><br>
To: <PAMED@or.wagged.com>;
<microsoft!collinsh><br>
Cc: <KELLEYL@or.wagged.com>; <PAMK@or.wagged.com>;
<RAYB@or.wagged.com>; <CLAIRE@wa.wagged.com>;
<susan@wa.wagged.com>; <microsoft!bradsi>;
<microsoft!russs><br>
Subject: FW: novell and wfw<br>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1992 5:32PM</p>
Notes from richt and claire</p>
Novell product FUD points: broken, uncertified, illegal, dangerous, void netware
warranty and crash your network<br>
Novell business FUD points: stolen, unfair, anti-competitive, bad faith, raises
spector of FTC investigation and costing us lots of money in support.</p>
Critical piece: We need to have a very clear answer to questions on why we
didn't give novell beta early on in the process.</p>
To address Novell FUD, we recommended a three pronged approach touching on the
product, support and corporate components of the issue.</p>
Product side:<br>
<blockquote>MS put into WFW what customers want and need<br>
Good for Netware customers<br>
Product is incredibly well tested<br>
12K beta sites<br>
Just windows 3.1 plus networking<br>
Solid legal ground<br>
Novell is hurting the industry - not just MS<br>
Hurting customers<br>
Competitive ploy<br>
Similar to apple lawsuit<br>
Compete in courtroom - not in the market<br>
Action will close down innovation - need to explain technical issues behind
licensing</p></blockquote>
Everyone else in the industry has open standards for what Novell is complaining
about - xerox, IBM, digital, U.S. Gov with TCP/IP, NFS and MS NDIS. Novell has
licensed the code broadly in the industry to OEMs, ISVs and IHVs. Why isn't
Novell pulling code from these other companies?</p>
ACTION: Find out what other companies have licensed from Novell the IPX
protocol/netwar redirector.</p>
Corporate Stragegy[sic]:<br>
PR is only one component of the corporate communications strategy. We need to
rally the industry behind us so that they will be advocates--OEMs, ISVs,
international, sales, etc.</p>
Our view: Novell's actions are hurting the industry, not just Microsoft--closing
down innovation.</p>
Support Strategy:<br>
<p align=right><b>MS-PCA
2558786<br>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
<hr>
<br>
As we did with the undocumented calls announcement, we need to explain the
technology and rationale behind a licensing agreement---<br>
<blockquote>what is a license?<br>
why do companies distribute licenses?<br>
what is novell upset about?<br>
what's a netware protocol? how does it work?<br>
who has licenses? why? what do you do with one?<br>
How has MS has been working with Novell over the years?<br>
what is MS willing to do re: NetWare support--handle all calls for Novell?
Distribute Windows resource kits free to all wfw
users?<br></blockquote>
----------<br>
From: collinsh<br>
To: billg; bradsi; mikemap; paulma; steveb; tonya<br>
Cc: billmi; billp; collinsh; johnlu; jonl; martya; pamelago; richt; russs;
w-clairl; w-coll; w-pamed; w-rayb<br>
Subject: RE: novell and wfw<br>
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 1992 12:18PM</p>
Pam, Colleen, and I have discussed the "state of PR" re: the looming
Novell threat. We're alarmed over worst-case possibility. We need to be prepared
for two levels of action, where No. 1 is what we're already doing and No. 2 is
what we are prepared for today.</p>
1. Things roll along with Novell grumping and we get a few more dings in the
press but ultimately things get resolved, if not this week then in a couple of
weeks. In this case, we stay the current course. We find 8-10 good NetWare users
who talk about how great this is for users (in process); we talk w/lab people
and techeds on same issue and confirm that product is good for them on NetWare
(Colleen/Ray--start this); we talk w/lewis and a couple of other key analysts
about how this good for customers, and try to create a groundswell of "this
is good for customers" stories to help prevent Novell from nuking us if
things finally break down in a couple of weeks. We proceed w/launch as
usual.</p>
2. We prepare for Novell nuking us any time from noon Thur to noon Tue; we
assume events of last week are a deliberate effort to sabotage the launch.
Agency and I agree we should start scrambling now and not wait till[sic]
possible noon Thur call -- we are NOT prepared now should they "Apple
us" and file suit late Thur or, say, Fri at 5 p.m. w/all our key execs out
of pocket in Euro or at company meeting or en route to NY; or if Novell does
this the a.m. of the announce.</p>
We need to assign a SWAT team to prepare for this possibility as otherwise we
will not get focus during the last crazy days getting ready for the launch
itself; and we need to develop a position on the biz/legal issues and folo[sic]
w/whatever materials, response, press statement/release that we may deem
necessary.</p>
If you read all the press since Strategy Day, it's all been about how MS is out
to kill them and LANtastic; sabotaging WFW launch is a not-so-unrational
response -- esp. since they control many of the small net resellers who will
want to sell WFW. It wouldn't take a lot of FUD to bring us to a halt. They'll
position this again as big, bad MS -- can't trust 'em, can't do biz w/them,
they're yanking us around, didn't even bother to test it w/NW, it'll break on NW
and they'll blame us, etc.</p>
Most of the issues are larger than PR itself. We need to get Steveb, Billp,
Bradsi, TonyA, RussS or delegatees in a room together NLT Thur a.m. Pam and I
are ready to leap into this -- PE can be here in the a.m.; I can start working
w/people today and also meet tomorrow. I suggest Tony drive getting the right
people together ASAP, NLT thur a.m.</p>
<p align=right>MS-PCA 2558787<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<hr>
<br>
The issues we need to have a POV on are:</p>
1. What will MS do if Novell seeks an injunction? Would a judge likely grant
one? What would be more reasonable steps a judge would do, short of that, and
what would be are response? Do they have any ground to stand on re: license
itself or testing issue? If the issue is testing or support, would MS offer to
do this for Novell? If so, should we proactively offer to do it this week, as
good guys interested in the customer? ("MS announced today that it will
provide free support to all Novell users for the first X days after WFW ahips,
announced that it's making its KnowledgeBase available free to Novell, offered
to send Y engineers to Prove to answer calls, etc.")</p>
2. What are the legal and perceptual issues re: our failure to have Novell test
product until last minute? Who else did we exclude from the bets who might ding
us, and why?<br>
(Who else will call the press and say, "they cheated us
too")</p>
3. In addition to direct public response WRT press, what will we do WRT
resellers, customers, OEMs, international? Who will be in place to handle those
communications? Esp. if ths breaks late Friday.</p>
4. Any other actions MS might take if Novell files suit or publicly threatens
to, or otherwise takes a nasty hard line in public that would create serious FUD
on Tue. What actions (legal or biz, not just PR) could MS take. and how would we
position this publicly? What other proactive BIZ things could we do to fix this
or make it clear that the issue is harmless to Novell and good for
customers?</p>
At minimum we need to have in our back pockets:</p>
1. Updated Q & A addressing such issues as: why didn't we give them beta
so they could test? Why is it incompat w/NW 4.0? How will we fix? Essentially
address the things we need to re: "test" issue in contract. Why
doesn't DR-DOS work and did we do anything to break it?</p>
1a. Add more to the "injunction" section where we flesh out some of
the things judges are known to do short of "pull it off the shelves".
Develop a position that shows worst-case almost never happens, and that plenty
of rational solutions exist that would satisfy Novell and help
customers.</p>
2. Timeline from when we first signed contract to things like design previews
where Drew Major was present; PDC and other devcons where we talked about it;
good selection of clips over several months where NW support is described;
damning Windows Mag article where their guy is bragging about NW client; etc.
Show that they clearly knew about this. (Tony and billp were working on this for
possible legal use, but we need a synopsis for possible press use.)</p>
3. Relevant pages of contract where use is permitted in win 3.1 products and
consider showing or giving to the press.</p>
4. Claire is composing notes on the road about editor opinions as to what Novell
will do -- we'll throw these in the pot for consideration as well (should have
by end of day today) -- what would our response to those actions be?</p>
We may or may not use some of this but we need to have it ready to go and a team
to deal with this.</p>
5. Continue doing all other "good for customer" stuff in Scenario
1.</p>
collins<br>
<p align=right>MS-PCA 2558788<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<hr>
<br>
From: Tony Audino <tonya@microsoft.com><br>
To: billg; bradsi; maikemap; paulma; steveb<br>
Cc: billp; collinsh; johnlu; jonl; martyta; russs; tonya; w-clairl<br>
Subject: novell and wfw<br>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1992 5:08PM</p>
i talked with john edwards this afternoon, i have been trying to reach him since
last friday. there is no softening in his tone about the issue in fact he was
more belligerent than ever. he said that he has had his testing team running wfw
thru the paces since he recd the product from me last thurs. according to him
they are working around the clock. he said they have about 28 different
configurations on which they are running wfw in conjunction with netware. they
currently have 12 items on their list on concerns center around our use of a
dedicated IPX driver in wfw vs their preference for the ODI driver. they have
discontinued use of a dedicated IPX driver and are no longer supporting it. he
mentioned 3 major concerns:<br>
1) they cannot support our use of IPX in WFW; it will cause major support
problems for them.<br>
2) during driver detection we reload MSIPX and no longer use the ODI drivers.
then reboot the system and it hangs. part of the problem is we bypass
netconfig.sys. WFW works OK but some of the other novell services are
hosed.<br>
3) our use of dedicated IPX driver will cause of some of their SPX apps to crash
(this sounds like it may be the same as (2) but he mentioned it
separately).</p>
he said that his testers will be finished by tomorrow and he will call me from
austin with a complete list of their concerns. at that time we can decide
when/where our technical people can meet. he also mentioned that he is very
concerned about receiving a shrink-wrapped package from me. this obviously means
we are building the product and shipping it out to the channel. i told him we
are preparing for our launch event but otherwise didn't comment on our building
of the product. he also said that we have broken our pledge not to talk with the
press since the story initially broke. he mentioned that his PR people have a
list of at least 20 people in the press of have talked with people from MS UK
about this issue. so he no longer feels obligated to stick with this pledge. he
said he has had the press lined up at his door and hasn't talked with them but
feels he may need to respond.</p>
i think there is at least a 50/50 chance they are preparing a case for getting
an injunction against us. edwards shows no signs of wanting to resolve this
issue and continually mentions how we breached the agreement by not providing
them with a versiion for testing until just the other day. we shold[sic] be
prepared for this worst case. billp is meeting with outside counsel today to
brief them on the issue. claire will be arranging a time for PR and product
people to meet to talk about a worst case scenario and how we should respond.
i'm trying to arrange a conference call between noorda and billg for thurs at
noon. i'm waiting to hear back from noorda's office. i will send mail after
talking with edwards tomorrow. i will also follow up with phil buggins in the UK
to find out what if anything was said there.</p>
<p align=right>MS-PCA 2558789<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
<hr>
<br>
|To: bradc bradsi<br>
|subject: win 3.1 bets<br>
|Cc: lizsi w-pamed<br>
|Date: Thu Nov 7 10:33:51 1991<br>
|<br>
|if you are NOT sending dri the win3.1 beta or not giving them access<br>
|that other developers have then we have a HUGE HUGE major<br>
|pr problem on our hands.<br>
|we can't go out and claim we are only trying to help customers<br>
|and then trash dri....even if we do it in a devious and smart way<br>
|and then have the press find out that ms has been cheating and lying<br>
|say it isn't so....we will have ZERO credability with the press</p>
################################################### 150<br>
From bradsi Thu Nov 07 12:15:17 1991<br>
To: josephk richt<br>
Subject: RE: OS/2 2<br>
Date: Thu 07 Nov 91 12:15:17 PST</p>
i'm sure it will be no problem getting a resource on tool production. when doug
comes over, it will be very very clear what the objective is. we need to think
through strategy issues too, not just tactics. like issues related to ole 2 or
things ibm might put in os/2 that we need to respond to.</p>
################################################### 151<br>
From bradsi Thu Nov 07 12:15:47 1991<br>
To: davidcol philba<br>
Cc: sharonh<br>
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Warning<br>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 12:15:47 PST</p>
i am out of town tomorrow. sorry.</p>
<blockquote>>From davidcol Thu nov 7 11:28:16 1991<br>
To: bradsi philba<br>
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Warning<br>
Cc: sharonh<br>
Date: Thu Nov 7 11:27:35 1991</p>
bradsi, you may want to attend this. We will be discussing the warning message
win 3.1 will post when setup on non-MSDOS systems.</p>
-----<br>
>From ninamay Thu Nov 7 11:19:41 1991<br>
To: billp davidcol philba richab<br>
Cc: debrev kharrang ninamay petermi<br>
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Warning<br>
Date: Thu Nov 7 11:19:01 PDT 1991</p>
I have scheduled a meeting regarding the above for Friday, November 8, 1991 at
9am in the LCA Conference Room (8S/1073). If there are any conflicts, please let
me know. Thanks.</p>
Nina</p></blockquote>
#################################################### 152<br>
From bradsi Thu Nov 07 12:16:24 1991<br>
To: davidcol lioneljo<br>
Cc: bobt lioneljo timbr<br>
Subject: Re: Toolhelp and Mansour Safai<br>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 12:16:24 PST</p>
he's glad to work on toolhelp.</p>
<blockquote>>From lioneljo Thu nov 7 11:31:41 1991<br>
To: bradsi davidcol<br>
Cc: bobt lioneljo timbr<br>
Subject; Toolhelp and Mansour Safai<br>
Date: Thu Nov 07 12:31:10 PDT 1991</p></blockquote>
<p align=right> MS-PCA 2558790<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
